Posted on 04/07/2010 10:49:55 PM PDT by neverdem
Be sure to donate to his retirement legal defense fund.
I have read many of your posts in the past and I agree with many of them. I believe that this time we must disagree. Perhaps you are right, perhaps I am. But at this time there appears to be an emotional context here that I am having a difficult time overcoming.
I believe the LtC is within his duty to question these and other orders being given with downward direction by Obama and the DOD. You don’t think he does have the duty to do so.
Let’s just leave it at that for now and let events play out and revisit it later.
Have a good day now.
That damn NPR is nothing but a buch right-wing, fringe, birthers. LOL!!
His oath and the first amendment??
His oath doesn't give him that responsibility, and the First Amendment doesn't protect him from refusing to obey orders.
Then what the hell good was your oath??? and who were those others??? Were they stated by you as part of your oath as well???
You swore to "support and defend the Constitution" -- not to "support and defend someone else's interpretation of that Constitution".
If you didn't read and understand the Constitution, and know what it said and meant, then you should have refused the oath until you could actually read and understand it. But that would have required due diligence on your part --
It sounds like your oath was malleable and breakable and subjective and in need of interpretation as well, and therefore not worth diddly squat.
The oath says to uphold the Constitution, no?? The first amendment gives him a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Did you leave the interpretation of your commanding officer's order to others as well???
Yes. If the CO came on the bridge and said, "I have the conn" I certainly didn't say, "Is that a legal order?"
But who did you then turn to for the interpretation of that order????
“...I remind him that Presidents come and go as do our elected officials but the Constitution is the thing that remains constant.”
Words to live by
The oath says to support and defend, not interpret.
The first amendment gives him a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Petition is one thing. Refusing to obey the orders of his commanding officer and other superior officers in the chain of command is another. Just as in the civilian world, the 1st Amendment gives you the right to petition the government but does not give you the right to break the law while doing so.
Nobody.
But you swore to support and defend the Constitution, didn't you?? You did not swear to support and defend someone else's interpretation of that Constitution, right???
Did you read the Constitution before you took the oath???
Did you understand your oath before you took your oath??? Did you interpret your oath before you took it or did you rely on someone else to interpret your oath for you??? What the hell good was your oath or anything else issuing forth from you???
With HRC, it’s mutually assured destruction, I am sure. They could kill each other politically, so it’s a standoff.
May they both go down in flames, the sooner the better!
So now being a supporter of the constitution is being senile?????? And you think its funny to make fun of those who are?????
No wonder this country is in the mess its in.
The 'others' are the Supreme Court. If you would read the Constitution and the history of the court you would know that.
It sounds like your oath was malleable and breakable and subjective and in need of interpretation as well, and therefore not worth diddly squat.
Then would it be safe to assume that you support Ehren Watada and Michael New?
Sorry, but this is a nonsense response ... almost a non-sequitir. How do you support and defend the Constitution without 'interpreting' it??
Petition is one thing. Refusing to obey the orders of his commanding officer and other superior officers in the chain of command is another. Just as in the civilian world, the 1st Amendment gives you the right to petition the government but does not give you the right to break the law while doing so.
There is an inherent conflict in this situation between Constitutional law and military law. In effect, Lakin would be breaking the law by obeying the orders as are the rest of our military, by failing to demand full disclosure from the pretender-in-chief. Let's call it civil disobedience in order to call proper attention to a major infraction (pun intended).
Is that the same Supreme Court that has time and again stated the definition of "natural born citizen" in its decisions in clear words that you currently hold in disdain???
What happened to your oath??? As I said it wasn't and isn't worth diddly squat, like all else issuing forth from you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.